View Post [edit]
Poster: | cashel | Date: | Aug 1, 2004 12:33pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ridetheory | Date: | Aug 1, 2004 2:36pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
Seriously -- if you want to discuss why I am not offended by this material; why I find it charming when compared to modern pornography; why I think it's an interesting window into the prudish, repressive, hidden sexual history of my country, I'm totally willing to discuss this film with you.
But only if you are really curious. If you just want to get upset, I'm really not in the mood to do the upsetting.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cashel | Date: | Aug 1, 2004 2:49pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ridetheory | Date: | Aug 1, 2004 3:01pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Spuzz | Date: | Aug 1, 2004 2:51pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
This post was modified by Spuzz on 2004-08-01 21:51:33
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cashel | Date: | Aug 1, 2004 7:54pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | DROWNING with SPAM |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ridetheory | Date: | Aug 1, 2004 2:59pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cashel | Date: | Aug 1, 2004 7:58pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | antics |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ridetheory | Date: | Aug 1, 2004 11:39pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: antics |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | glenn | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 11:30am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | spam: alternate meanings ...(was Re: antics) |
as well as posting numerous short posts to the same forum with nothing cogent to say (spamming the forum), posting non sequitur replies, that have nothing to do with the putative topic being discussed (off-topic spam).
and also, there are the related terms 'troll' and 'trolling', which combine the noun and verb form in their meaning, hence 'one who lurks on a forum fishing for controversy'. Trolls are generally despised by those who recognise their trolling behaviour patterns, yet are rarely 'called on it', as conventional wisdom holds that to 'feed the trolls' is to encourage them.
I think though, that what is meant in this case by 'spam' is "burying the main subject of a thread in a flurry of irrelevant replies.
And an on topic post which is relevant to the discussion and is not intended to arouse ire can be considered spam if it deflects the topic sufficiently this post is a possible example of spam.
Of course spam is in the eye of the beholder, and one man's meat is another man's metaphor. ;-)
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cashel | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 12:59pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Thank you TO GLENN |
This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-02 19:00:34
This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-02 19:59:41
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ridetheory | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 4:12pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Now this post, I must admit, is a bit malicious |
This post was modified by ridetheory on 2004-08-02 23:12:25
Reply [edit]
Poster: | glenn | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 9:39pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Now this post, I must admit, is a bit malicious |
to be fair, the very nature of the 'thread' system used on these boards can bea bit confusing, and sometimes it might be the case that replies can be made at 'inappropriate' levels of the thread hierarchy...
thank you,
... this kind of thing is easy to happen.. here's some suggestions to prevent friction and promote lubrication on this type of forum.
1) discuss concepts, not people on the forum, even mentioning another person can be misconstrued as an attack
2)if you are specifically addressing an individual, usage such as "(@ glenn)you still believe in the tooth fairy?really?" can serve to explicitly disambiguate who your addressee is...
3)if it seems as if someone is making some sort of personal attack on you, they likely aren't... ignore it
4)if someone makes it plain they are attacking you, ignore it even more, nothing is servedby giving an attacker the only thing they could possibly want from you,a response.
5)be cordial to even the biggest jerk, if this doesn't work be amazingly cordial. Nobody who is spoiling for a fight can lastlong int he face of implacable calm.
6)periodically, start a random post with the words thank you, or I'm sorry. These words have a positive effect even when used at random moments.
I really appreciate your help. Thanks a lot!
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cashel | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 10:06pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | GLENN I will follow your guidlines THANKS |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ridetheory | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 11:53pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Now this post, I must admit, is a bit malicious |
Very sane suggestions. Bear in mind that certain users of this forum will agree to them, but that they have amusingly short memories. The slightest disagreement will begin the whole cycle again.
Mark my words.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | glenn | Date: | Aug 4, 2004 12:01pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | shrug (was Re: Now this post, I must admit, is a bit malicious) |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | summerseve | Date: | Aug 1, 2004 11:12pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
2a) Obscenity in speech or writing.
b) Pornography.
The film is suggestive, not pornographic. Here in the States it would barely get an "R" rating, if that.
If I ever have a son, I'm going to put this film on a loop and project it over his crib. (Sorry, just trying to get a flame war going! Ha ha)
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cashel | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 5:12am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | TRAFALGAR please dont put words inmy mouth I DID NOT SAY IT |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | summerseve | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 10:21am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: TRAFALGAR please dont put words inmy mouth I DID NOT SAY IT |
Shutting down Hollywood? As usual, you confuse me endlessly.
In any case, it's a cute, harmless little film, and I like it.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Spuzz | Date: | Aug 1, 2004 2:40pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
"The Archive intends to collect all human knowledge and make it available to everyone. We are sorry that this particular piece offends you, but we consider all viewpoints equally valuable."
And I've learned to accept it. People have said to upload some writings on my own. (which actually I havent done)
I suggest the same thing with you in regards to this film. Don't like it, fine. There are a lot of people (including me) who are interested in these films not for the smut value (I of course am not interested ;) ) but to watch this film euphemerally and artistically. Like it or not, this is a historical artifact.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cashel | Date: | Aug 1, 2004 2:57pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | glenn | Date: | Aug 1, 2004 6:37pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
The entire internet is filled with smut, and you are offended by this ?
If you are letting children access the internet unsupervised, that's plain irresponsible.
What if your unsupervised child decided to type in one of these search terms or addresses?
pretty girl
peepee
poop
pie
whitehouse.com
password
thumb
teen
wet
etc.. instead of archive.org?
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cashel | Date: | Aug 1, 2004 7:10pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ridetheory | Date: | Aug 1, 2004 11:41pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cashel | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 5:07am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-02 12:07:53
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ridetheory | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 4:09pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
This post was modified by ridetheory on 2004-08-02 23:09:22
Reply [edit]
Poster: | glenn | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 9:10am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
This post was modified by glenn on 2004-08-02 16:10:01
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cashel | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 9:28am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Glenn SEE my reply to TRAFALGAR IDID NOT SAY IT |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ridetheory | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 2:48pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Glenn SEE my reply to TRAFALGAR IDID NOT SAY IT |
This post was modified by ridetheory on 2004-08-02 21:48:09
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cashel | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 11:01am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Glenn SEE my reply to TRAFALGAR IDID NOT SAY IT |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Spuzz | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 10:32am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out |
This post was modified by Spuzz on 2004-08-02 17:32:01
Reply [edit]
Poster: | glenn | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 10:42am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out |
The mere factthatI have replied toone of your posts, if I did, should not make you feel like my comments arepointed atyou, whoeveryou are..(I didn't even bother to see who it was that lashed out at me, as it was obviously someone who misunderstood me or just needs to lash out at someone.
shrug
I don't know where anyone would get the idea that I was attacking them, I just was expressing an opinion about the appropriateness of hosting that particular file.
I think it's obscene to turn on the tv and see a picture of a person's leg with no person attached to it, laying in the dirt.
I don't think a video of a girl in a bra qualifies as obscenity in this community. Meaning a fairly academic and mature level archive attempting to become the modern equivalent of the Library at Alexandria.
...as for 'growing up', I have grown up about as far as I ever will, and in fact seem to be growing back down now. And out around the middle as well.
And I'd like to point out that I don't hide behind a pseudonym, glenn is in fact my full legal name. I think one should be willing to own up to what you say on the net, and think before posting to an archive that will in all likelihood last longer than all of us.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cashel | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 11:28am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | glenn | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 10:08pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out |
Maybe I 'replied'by clicking a link at the wrong level of the hierarchy, or maybe you did,or whatever...it doesn't really matter to me, does it matter to you? We could maybe sort it out if it seems important.
I'm more than willing to go with the 'glenn is an ignorant newbie' theory,and move on to something fun or go import the 3 string cheese incident shows I just uploaded.
Hey,have you seen the movie Pipe Dream?. If you have,what did you think of it?
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cashel | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 10:27pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Glenn now OK thanks |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | glenn | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 10:46pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Glenn now OK thanks |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ridetheory | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 11:49pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Debating Skills |
ROTFL!
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cashel | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 11:51am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out |
This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-02 18:51:17
Reply [edit]
Poster: | summerseve | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 9:19pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out |
Cashel, please refer back to the title if your post, which labels the film "mind-less smut".
Arguing with you is so easy it's almost unfair.
And Glenn, please ignore the resident troll. Your posts have been interesting and intelligent, and we could certainly use more of that (as you can see)...
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cashel | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 9:49pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out |
This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-03 04:42:00
This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-03 04:49:51
Reply [edit]
Poster: | summerseve | Date: | Aug 3, 2004 11:40am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out |
Anyway, the point has already been made: Jack called the film smut. Some people disagree. No big deal.
And really I swear, Jack, I bear you no malice. Sometimes I don't think you're for real...but malice? No.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ridetheory | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 11:59pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Contradictions |
Trafalgar's post was not incoherent, it was quite succinct and logical.
You called the film smut in your header of your original post. Do you consider smut to be obscene? If not, what is your definition of smut? The OED says smut is "Indecent or obscene language," and dictionary.com says that it is "Obscenity in speech or writing; Pornography." Smut is obscenity, and you called the film smut. Therefore, based on the definition, you called the film obscene.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ridetheory | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 3:20pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out |
But if you don't think it's obscene, why do you want to prevent children from accessing it?
If you also believe, as you said in earlier posts, that a 9-year-old would find it boring, then why are you concerned with setting up a system to keep him from watching it?
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Spuzz | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 9:42am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Glenn SEE my reply to TRAFALGAR IDID NOT SAY IT |
Why do you call people names who try to make points? Malice! Malice! Malice! Instead of insulting people, just defend your positions, and well, learn.
I haven't seen glenn post on the forum before, and attempting to drive him away with your snide comments to 'grow up' isn't really inviting conversation. It's almost driving people away (which may explain why only a handful of people bother to post on here anymore.. It's almost you vs. everyone else) IMHO
Spuzz
Reply
Poster: | 2muchtv | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 9:36am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
The idealized image of feminine beauty at the time, as compared to that ideal in different eras. What attributes of a woman are considered by society to be attractive change radically from year to year, and from decade to decade. This film provides and interesting review of the ideal of that era.
The concept of volition as it relates to a woman, her relationship to her own body, and what constitutes modesty. In this film, the woman is a passive receiver of external action - the waves disrobe her, she does not (at least initially) disrobe herself. This is extremely significant to a student of women’s studies and the era of feminine mystique (the approximate time this film was made).
The concept of what constituted risqué entertainment at the time. Compare the scenes in this film to a heavy metal music video (accessible to children of all ages, by the way, on MTV and other venues), to the love scenes in a current day time dramatic serial (“soap opera”) or to contemporary pornographic film.
The degree to which content was expected to carry production values (or the lack there of). Note that in the film in question, the simple act of a supposedly inadvertent exposure of the female breast was expected to carry the film, and the audience had little of no expectation of any additional entertainment value for the price of attending the film.
I would be very interested to hear others’ observations in these, or similar, areas of study.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | glenn | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 11:24am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
This post was modified by glenn on 2004-08-02 18:24:38
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ridetheory | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 3:35pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
The concept of volition as it relates to a woman, her relationship to her own body, and what constitutes modesty. In this film, the woman is a passive receiver of external action - the waves disrobe her, she does not (at least initially) disrobe herself. This is extremely significant to a student of women’s studies and the era of feminine mystique (the approximate time this film was made).
The disrobing happens over and over, and she has to pretend to be surprised by it multiple times. While her smile appears genuine, the repetition struck me as both artless and a bit creepy. I liked the woman in front of the camera, and disliked the man behind it. (Could have been a woman, but I doubt it.)
Reply
Poster: | 2muchtv | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 4:48pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Volition |
One of the most fascinating aspects of the film, in my opinion. Today, we find the scene to be droll in the extreme, yet at the time the film maker felt it was the best way to present the subject. Was it because of the fragile nature of the male psyche of the time? The sense that a woman had to be powerless to be attractive? Did the film maker fear that if the woman removed her top herself the audience would become fearful of the woman character exerting control over her own state of dress? Would the film had been less titillating to it's intended audience?
To me, the movie is a fascinating insight into the tensions that existed at the time between man, woman, society and power, and a great addition to he archives.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ridetheory | Date: | Aug 3, 2004 2:08am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Volition |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ridetheory | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 4:12pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
This post was modified by ridetheory on 2004-08-02 23:12:06
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Marysz | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 11:17am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | ridetheory | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 4:29pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
This post was modified by ridetheory on 2004-08-02 23:29:03
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Marysz | Date: | Aug 3, 2004 9:46am |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT?? |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cashel | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 12:56pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Thank you TO MARYSZ |
This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-02 19:56:43
Reply
Poster: | 2muchtv | Date: | Aug 2, 2004 1:45pm |
Forum: | movie_of_the_week | Subject: | Value |
This post was modified by 2muchtv on 2004-08-02 20:38:51
This post was modified by 2muchtv on 2004-08-02 20:45:06